Speaking, listening in faith

Later this year, a group of evangelical Christians and Muslims will

meet in Morocco in an interfaith conference. Last week, a member of

the National Clergy Council, one of the participants, sent out a

press release stating that neither he nor any of the evangelical

participants in the conference would engage in any proselytizing

during the trip. Furthermore, he said all participants would be

required to sign a covenant that they would not evangelize at any

time while in Morocco, or risk being sent home. Rev. Rob Schenck, who

sent out the release, said, “The only focus of this effort is to

build bridges of mutual respect, understanding and friendship. We do

look forward to speaking with each other openly and without reserve

about the things that are most important to us, and that includes our

respective religions and beliefs. But we will be listening as much as

we will be talking.” Should the participants be compelled to not

evangelize during the conference? Is it fair?

Each of us can participate in interfaith dialogue right here in

Orange County. It takes just one other person from a different

religious background combined with a mutual desire to ask questions

and help each other learn.

Why is discussion about religion so tense? We sense that we

sometimes have strong opinions, with turbulent emotions accompanying

them.

For example, I notice my strong disagreement and the energies

rising in my body when someone expresses the belief that women should

not be ministers or priests. What is important is what I do next, how

I deal with my opinions and feelings.

I think many people lack the skills or confidence to deal with

this kind of common experience of disagreement, and therefore find

themselves either shying away from topics which are controversial, or

digging in for a heated argument.

For a Zen practitioner, awareness of the thoughts and body

sensations arising within is the first step. But awareness of this

moment of conversation also expands to this person, looking into

their eyes and seeing their sincere efforts to live well. The

encounter does not need to be dominated by my views. There is a

bigger picture.

Is it a solution to pretend that there are not real differences in

belief or to try to gloss over them? Although there is value in

appreciating that each religious tradition offers wisdom, it’s not

likely that we are truly “neutral,” nor would that be desirable.

“From the beginning, we had in this nation a great variety of

Christian denominations that regarded each other as mistaken,” is the

frank way that Cardinal Dulles describes American religious history.

Religious leaders and public educators should provide skills and

perspectives that help us to be more effective in dealing with areas

of disagreement that inevitably come up in a diverse culture. The

Religious Diversity Faire has been a major forum in Orange County in

providing this.

Current discussions in politics about “civility” highlight the

importance of being able to disagree in a spirit of goodwill, which

is the hallmark of the liberal arts. We may have forgotten that we

can in all honesty consider our view the best one, and yet still

respect the views of others and be enriched by the exchange.

It is not true that our only choice is to either consider all

views as equal (even where they are contradictory) or be guilty of

intolerance or condescension. Having “no view,” or espousing, “all

views are OK” is not a solution.

Inter-religious dialogue typically involves parties explaining

their beliefs to one another, narrowing disagreements by finding

areas of convergence and exploring ways they can live peacefully

together. Although I traveled in Morocco many years ago, I have found

sensitivity to the laws and customs of other cultures to be important

in a variety of situations. Not evangelizing is often a matter beyond

the terms of a formal dialogue event.

In Zen, we view attachment to religious beliefs as one way of

clinging to ego, which creates suffering and blocks people from

experiencing the fullness of life.

Interfaith dialogue can help us to see this clinging and inspire

us to move beyond it.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

“I want to live in such ways that other people will say, ‘If this

is the servant, who must the master be?’” So said Pope John XXIII in

1960 echoing the wisdom of St. Francis of Assisi in the 13th century,

“Witness always; if necessary, use words!”

Good character and noble action is the heart of good evangelism.

In this crucial sense, no one can or should ever be compelled not to

engage in good evangelism anywhere. At an interfaith conference where

“the focus is to build bridges,” however, it does seem to be wise to

prohibit “using words” to evangelize, proselytizing and promoting

partisan agendas so that participants may be encouraged to meet God

in other people who are different from themselves.

For me, “meet God” means: “be enabled to live fully,” “fill our

most basic needs,” “have what we cannot do without,” “know the most

basic truths,” “find true happiness,” “get fundamental strengths” and

more. What better goals could such an interfaith conference have?

Participants should endeavor to deepen and extend interfaith

dialogue, which has been going on for centuries.

On Wednesday evenings during this Lent 2005, our parishioners are

offering a dramatic reading arranged by our assistant priest, the

Rev. Cindy Evans Voorhees, of “Nathan the Wise,” a poem in five acts

written in 1778 by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. The three principal

characters represent the three religions, Judaism, Christianity and

Islam; the Christian Knight comes across as less Christlike than

either Sultan Saladin or Nathan, a Jerusalem Jew.

Our associate pastor, Steve Felder, has noted how Lessing, the son

of a clergyman, was attacked for portraying a Jew so positively as

this was unheard of in 18th century Germany. The main theme of

“Nathan the Wise” is that noble character and good deeds emerge from

people of diverse creeds. A second, equally important theme is that

religious tolerance should be the norm for society.

What themes could be better for dialogue between evangelical

Christians and Muslims in Morocco this May?

VERY REV. CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

St. Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

It is not for me to advise Christians how to respond to the “Great

Commission,” as Matthew 28:20 is known. There, the Gospel records

Jesus’ command to his disciples to baptize the nations in the name of

the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This passage has been understood as

the warrant, or license, to evangelize the world and has been

fulfilled with varying degrees of zeal.

It is in my purview only to describe the Jewish attitude toward

missionizing.

Dear Reader, if there is a knock on your door and you open it to

find visitors eager to discuss the Bible with you and desirous to

share their faith, you can be sure of one thing: your guests are

definitely not Jewish!

Judaism does not actively proselytize and seek to convince others

to accept Jewish doctrine and practice. Judaism, the founding

religion of monotheism, teaches that all people, regardless of

particular faith, merit a portion in the world to come based on their

deeds. One’s beliefs are recognized as a matter between the person

and his God. It is not for me to intrude.

In Jewish understanding, one’s creed has no bearing on acceptance

into Heaven for all eternity. The criterion is whether that faith

influences one to do good or evil.

Another factor in Judaism’s aversion to proselytizing is that

attempts to change a fellow’s religion, overtly or subtly, reveals a

basic contempt for the other. The act of missionizing seeks to

annihilate the faith presently subscribed to and to replace it with a

“superior” belief system. While the missionary views his activity as

a noble fulfillment of a Biblical mandate, I see it as spiritual

imperialism, an attempt to colonize the mind and heart with his views

and values. Shall we exalt ourselves by demeaning others? Should we

not, rather, subscribe to the idea of pluralistic equilibrium? Faith

communities should supplement each other, not try to supplant each

other!

Lurking behind every missionary overture is the conviction that

“we have the total truth; you possess virtually none.” Despite such

conceit, I believe I am every bit the candidate for “redemption” and

“salvation,” based on the convictions to which I am heir. I am quite

“fulfilled” in my own faith, thank you very much. The integrity of

Judaism is unaffected by the presence of other religions. I submit

that a healthy dose of theological humility be taken as an antidote

to religious triumphalism and spiritual arrogance that animates the

missionary.

The energy lavished on seeking to convert others to one’s faith

would be more profitably spent in examining and bettering one’s own

spiritual life.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yam

Newport Beach

Morocco was once a Christian nation, with a thriving Berber

Christian population. According to Operation World, the seventh

century conquest of the land by Islamic invaders eradicated the

Berber church and it is now illegal to proselytize. So the

requirement could have been conditional for their visas to be

approved.

However, this trip is billed as a dialogue or a discussion, not as

a seminar. It is a matter of general courtesy, and intellectual

integrity, to listen to someone with whom you are having a dialogue

(“di” comes from “2”, meaning you both have to listen).

Any of us should be willing to listen to the tenets of another

faith system. How can any person be convinced of his/her faith and

not have explored the other options? It would be intellectually

dishonest for me to tell people that Jesus is the only way of

salvation if I had not explored other faiths to discover their

salvation message. Someone who cannot listen to other points of view

must have a fear of being proven wrong. It is only when we can hear

someone else that we are truly comfortable with what we believe.

That being said, I would like to hear more of the council’s

definition of “evangelism.” If you are inviting me into a dialogue

about my faith, at what point does that discussion become evangelism.

The components of my faith that make it distinct from Islam and other

religions are also the same components that sound “evangelistic.”

When you have a dialogue to understand each other, you have to be

willing to discuss the things that may convince you that it is true

or not. If this trip is about social issues or politics, then the gag

order would be appropriate, but the trip is about “speaking ...

openly and without reserve about the things that are most important

to us, and that includes our respective religions and beliefs.”

That means anyone can talk about his or her faith except the

evangelicals. That is not a dialogue and doesn’t seem fair.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE PASTOR

RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa